The bigger issue is consent. People on fediverse feel very strongly about consent, and search engines tend to just ignore it. Better do some serious research into consent to search on fedi before embarking on designing a search engine for fedi.
Yes. And neo-colonialism.
It is important to remember that disappearing messages (in any application) are only helpful for people who you trust currently. (And until the messages are deleted.)
Sure, no question about it. Still, how the feature is designed matters, and I feel a design requiring both parties to consent to disappearing messages before they are enabled is bad design in this case.
One of the reasons why is: you might want to send some sensitive messages to someone while they are away/offline/unavailable. Being able to enable disappearing messages and then send what you need to send is quite important.
disappearing messages (with mutual agreement)!
Not entirely sure "mutual agreement" makes sense? I would need to read more about it, but my feeling is that it is reasonable to have the sender of the message set the terms here.
live messages – they update for all recipients as you type them.
Why would anyone want that? Is there a way to disable that?
Does it federate?
Ok, I should have been more specific: the way it is often framed (and the way I have seen it framed, and how the linked article frames it) is as if these were US-affiliated labs working on bioweapons. That is not what Nuland said. Biological research facilities do not have to be bioweapons labs, just as explosives research facilities need not be arms manufacturers.
Greenwald (the author of the linked article) of course does what Greenwald recently is hell-bent on doing, which is to try to scandalize anything he can. I used to respect the man, but that was a long while ago.
This story again: some ISPs are shit at implementing IPv6.
I don't know. But I'll try to listen to BIPOC folk when they talk about it.
What.